XXXVI 
FURTHER REMARKS UPON THE HUMAN REMAINS 
FROM THE NEANDERTHAL. 
The Natural Hestory Review, 1864, pp. 429-446. 
SINCE the remarkable skull, discovered in a cave of the valley of 
the Diissel was introduced to the special notice of the English scien- 
tific world in the pages of this Journal,! it has become the subject of 
many discussions, and even of not a few special commentaries, for one 
or two of which I am myself responsible. Partly on this ground, 
partly by reason of the inherent interest of the subject, I propose now 
to give some account of, and to remark upon, the four essays on the 
Neanderthal skull which appear to me to be of most importance ; 
viz. that by Professor King,” that by Professor Mayer,’ that by Professor 
Schaafhausen,* and that by Mr. Turner.’ 
1. Professor King considers the differences between the Nean- 
derthal skull and all other human crania to be so considerable, that 
he is not only quite certain of its belonging to at least a distinct 
species—Homo Neanderthalensis—but, at the end of his communica- 
tion, even feels “strongly inclined to believe that it is not only speci- 
fically but generically distinct from Man,” considering that he has 
satisfactorily shown “ that not only in its general but equally so in its 
particular characters, has the fossil under consideration the closest 
1 Natural History Review, 1861. 
2 The reputed fossil man of the Neanderthal. The Quarterly Journal of Science. No. 1. 
Jan. 1864. 
3 Ueber die fossilen Ueberreste eines Menschlichen Schadels und Skeletes in einer 
Felsenhohle des Diissel—oder Neander-thales. Miiller’s Archiv. 1864, No. 1. 
4 Sur le crane de Neanderthal. Bull. de la Société d’Anthropologie, 1863-1864. 
5 The Fossil Skull Controversy. On human crania allied in anatomical characters to the 
Engis and Neanderthal skulls. The Quarterly Journal of Science. No. 2, April, 1864. 
